MrBaskerville:I donīt understand the hype for Wreck it Ralph. Think it looks pretty standard with the usual jokes and a plot seemingly similar to monsters inc. Would probably help if i could understand the hype behind most Pixar films, but alas i cannot.

The problem is that it doesn't use the cameos as anything more than cameos. Its like "hey remember these guys? You played their games right? Well its not about those guys its about a new made up character and his made up companions." It just feels like nothing more than a shallow tease. Also the scene in the trailer where he goes to a generic sci fi fps....it just left a bad taste in my mouth. It lacks a game reference so is it just making a joke about all fps games being the same? I dunno, just rambling. Just another "misguided hero trying to find himself" movie. And I don't think John C Reily is capable of being funny, especially in the lead role of a Disney movie. Sarah Silverman reading a PG script is also the exact opposite of what I would be interested in as well.

maninahat:I'm not all that impressed about the Brave trailer. Oh my, a girl who is not...GIRLY?! And so contrary to societal pressures too! I can't say I've ever before seen corsets and dresses used as a metaphor for female servitude.

I understand it is a kid's film, but I expected something a little smarter from Pixar. The best tomboy movie of all time came out more than 60 years ago: the 1953 musical, Calamity Jane. It bothers me that even with the benefit of a more enlightened, accommodating society, we still haven't been able to out do that movie in terms of depth and gender politics.

Yea I don't see why Bob is so amazed about another princess movie about sticking it to authority and gender roles. At this point it just feels like beating a dead horse. Ok, we GET IT. We we're male dominant once, can we PLEASE make another movie about something else? As a guy I just feel like rolling my eyes. But any negative criticism might be overlooked as sexism.....because the internet is the internet. Sigh :/

While I appreciated New Super Mario Bros. on the DS as a nostalgic throwback, I am afraid that this trend of 2D side-scrolling Mario games might stunt real innovation. But after the direct sequel Super Mario Galaxy 2, I shouldn't be too surprised.

Two new NSMB games is too much, just like another Galaxy would be. As much as I would love having another set of Galaxy levels Mario seems to be at its best when it keeps moving and I think staying in the same place for two games is about the most it could handle.

Even from the player's perspective, that kind of design is welcome. Yes, it might function mechanically much like the M3&3/4 assault rifle, but visually you have a very distinct firing firing animation as all three sets of barrels rotate on their own axis, and then rotate around each other as well.

It also feels a lot better because it folds out of a much less threatening gun

Caramel Frappe:Come now guys, does it matter? I know he isn't evil nor a villain- but look at our main protagonist of Wreck-It-Ralph. He isn't evil nor a bad guy ether yet he does fill in as the antagonist of the game he stars in so that's why he is considered bad, not evil but the role of bad guy. See?

The line people are getting annoyed about is actually just this. People don't seem to have noticed...

Wreck-It-Ralph: I hope this film will be good, but I'm still tempering my expectations based on the rest of the trailer, particular the eye-roll inducing zombie. This is movie from Disney Animations, which would relegate the film to the "not Pixar" category. Also according to the Street Fighter movie with Jean Claude Van Damme, Zangief was one of Bison's goons. I know that every self respecting Street Fighter fan counts that film as official canon.

Django: I'm surprised it's taken this long for Tarantino to do a riff on westerns. I am very psyched to see it and I hope it frightens a lot of the bible belt, white, lower middle class people who think Obama was born in Kenya and is trying to turn them into a Communist utopia (a group of people that can be labeled as "morons"). Hopefully the film will drive more of them into their backyard bomb shelters for a prolonged period of time.

Mario: I actually don't think your comparison to the Beatles is very apt. The Beatles aren't making new music and driving the industry. Nintendo is still a dominant force in the industry and drives industry practices. They should have more leeway than anyone to take risks. They should be making an effort to not lower themselves to the same release practices as Activision or EA. Ideally Activision and EA would try to innovate as well, but this isn't about them. Nintendo still has an effect, so they cannot waste that opportunity.

Batman: The riskiest thing people can do with Batman now is go back to the camp and silliness of the Adam West show. That's kind of what they tried to do with The Brave and the Bold though, isn't it. When you say no more Batman I assume you mean "serious and gritty Frank Miller inspired" Batman. It would probably be nice to see a new version of Batman that seems to enjoy being Batman as much as his fans would. That, or as Batman from Red Son.

So Zangeif gets to be treated as a "bad guy". I'd consider him more of a product of his times rather than he being a "bad guy". Oh, and I've heard more controversy over whether to call him Dr. Robotnik or Dr. Eggman.

If it continues in the vein of AA/AC and the Begins trilogy, yeah I totally agree with this

Captcha" get over it. LOL

People might change their mind when Beware the Batman comes out though.

I seriously don't understand why WB has made so many Batman animated series. The first one was great, we all know that. Then we have "The Batman," which was okay, and then started getting pretty good before they stopped it. Then "Brave and the Bold" was also really popular before it got stopped too and now we have a new show. Why can't there just be one show? We all know WB cannot for the life of them make an Avengers style film universe, so they might as well go with what's worked in the past, an animated TV series universe.

Yeah...I'll have to agree. Batman needs a rest. It was cool when, you know, Batman Begins came out and made me get interested in Batman again. And then Batman: Arkham Asylum/City was cool. But it's getting kinda old now. Batman has earned his badass status already...over and over again. So why don't we focus on Superman instead? I'd like for a game developer company to prove me wrong because I really think Superman sucks. I like the folklore that was brought to my attention thanks to Kill Bill: A superhero who disguises himself as a human and not the other way around. So yeah, let's work on that, yes?

Wreck-it Ralph? SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO looking forward to this movie. The fact that Disney managed to get Nintendo, Capcom, Sega, Namco and who knows who else in the same room, literally, is pretty awesome. That's obviously fan service and boy, do they know how to cater! So yeah, that alone is worth my money.

And can we talk about how rich is Disney to bring all of those guys together for the first time?!

DemBones:Wreck-It-Ralph: I hope this film will be good, but I'm still tempering my expectations based on the rest of the trailer, particular the eye-roll inducing zombie. This is movie from Disney Animations, which would relegate the film to the "not Pixar" category. Also according to the Street Fighter movie with Jean Claude Van Damme, Zangief was one of Bison's goons. I know that every self respecting Street Fighter fan counts that film as official canon.

Django: I'm surprised it's taken this long for Tarantino to do a riff on westerns. I am very psyched to see it and I hope it frightens a lot of the bible belt, white, lower middle class people who think Obama was born in Kenya and is trying to turn them into a Communist utopia (a group of people that can be labeled as "morons"). Hopefully the film will drive more of them into their backyard bomb shelters for a prolonged period of time.

Mario: I actually don't think your comparison to the Beatles is very apt. The Beatles aren't making new music and driving the industry. Nintendo is still a dominant force in the industry and drives industry practices. They should have more leeway than anyone to take risks. They should be making an effort to not lower themselves to the same release practices as Activision or EA. Ideally Activision and EA would try to innovate as well, but this isn't about them. Nintendo still has an effect, so they cannot waste that opportunity.

Batman: The riskiest thing people can do with Batman now is go back to the camp and silliness of the Adam West show. That's kind of what they tried to do with The Brave and the Bold though, isn't it. When you say no more Batman I assume you mean "serious and gritty Frank Miller inspired" Batman. It would probably be nice to see a new version of Batman that seems to enjoy being Batman as much as his fans would. That, or as Batman from Red Son.

Actually, it's the upper middle class that is more likely to be against Obama than lower to mid middle class. The poor who don't live in the South are a Democratic base, especially if they are unionized. Suburbia just loves them some GOP though.

In this list we have everything from the nifty but near useless to the outright insane. Does any weapon in 90% of modern shooters deserve to be anywhere near this list? Honestly, the only gun I can think of in FPS land that feels half as fun as this is... not in an FPS. It's the Patriot from MGS4 - an infinite-ammo SMG that plays the Snake Eater song when you shoot with it. Even then, however, it's just a less ludicrous (and thus less hillarious) version of the RYNO-V.

What about the Rail gun? Or the dolls? Don't tell me you didn't have some fun with the rail gun? That thing was damned awesome.

Admittedly metal gear has always had some pretty sweet weapons available, so i'll forgive this transgression this time.

stueymon:Also, Batman is the only interesting DC character, the rest are Demi-gods walking amongst mere mortals, Over-powered fantasy characters that even the Bat himself falls prey too in "Being able to plan for everything" trap.

Yes, I prefer Marvel characters, they have tend to have a Set power, and stick to it.

(note, I'm not massively into comics so I don't have a ton of lore, just working off what I've seen)

Uh, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure DC has a TON of non-powered characters. Wildcat, Green Arrow, Huntress, the entire bat-family, Shining Knight, and Manhunter just off the top of my head. And that's not even counting "suit" characters.

Superman can now run x number of times faster than light and is immune to kryptonite, so yeah.

-I'm going to say something that will probably be controversial. Justice League Unlimited was probably the last time the DC Universe was anything resembling good.

You never bothered to watch Young Justice or Teen Titans did you? Or perhaps any of the DC animated movies to come out in the last 7 years. They're generally not very well advertised, but you can easily pick them up in stores when they come out or on Amazon and they are almost always excellent.

stueymon:Also, Batman is the only interesting DC character, the rest are Demi-gods walking amongst mere mortals, Over-powered fantasy characters that even the Bat himself falls prey too in "Being able to plan for everything" trap.

Yes, I prefer Marvel characters, they have tend to have a Set power, and stick to it.

(note, I'm not massively into comics so I don't have a ton of lore, just working off what I've seen)

Uh, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure DC has a TON of non-powered characters. Wildcat, Green Arrow, Huntress, the entire bat-family, Shining Knight, and Manhunter just off the top of my head. And that's not even counting "suit" characters.

Superman can now run x number of times faster than light and is immune to kryptonite, so yeah.

Since when is he immune to Kryptonite? If anything he's been depowered since the new 52.

-wreck-it ralph: agreed, zangif is in a fucking disney movie, i'm happy.-nitendo: eeeeer... i would argue that nintendo has been doing a lot of re-milking and not enough even attempting innovation for a while now, but bob's point still stands: COD's one innovation in 9 years may be one more than nintendo's last 9 years, but unlike nintendo, that was preceeded by decades of some of the mos important ideas in gaming history. buuut... okay, i gotta agree with DemBones' comment aswell.-brave: oh god i wanna see this!-django unchained: don't see why it should be controversial. i mean, i see why it WILL be controversial, but i don't see why it should be.-green arrow: didn't even know it existed, but... green arrow's never done it for me anyway. he's a pretty sober and boring affair compared to other heroes, which is probebly the reason they deemed him tv show-worthy.-batman: agreed, sick to fucking death of batman. can't take him seriously anymore. go away.

Glad I'm not the only one getting a little stunad with Batman. Me, I always preferred Superman, but even if you forced me to watch some Batman, I prefer Terry McGinnis over Bruce Wayne. At least Terry has more personality than a bag of dirt. He's hilarious. He's like Spiderman with all of Batman's gadgets.

As for the Mario vs. CoD debate, I agree with Bob here. Yeah, Mario games are always platformers, just like CoD is always an FPS series. The thing is, though, that every Mario game does something different with the platformer formula and just uses the basic Mario mechanics as a jumping-off point. CoD has been the same damn game for the last five years, and this is from someone who actually liked MW2 but thought WaW blew. At least Black Ops II looks to mix up the formula somewhat and has been the first one I've been genuinely excited about since CoD3, and I never even ended up playing CoD3.

You know why I think people see it the other way, though? Because FPSes are currently the genre. When someone says "it's an FPS," people'll ask "What kind of FPS?" If someone says "it's a platformer" these days, you'll hear shouts of "God, another one?" The current gaming culture is in FPSes, so people'll look closer than surface-deep. Since platformers are currently "one of those other genres," people'll see a platformer and won't care or wish to know anything other than "platformer." Especially Mario games. Yeah, goombas, koopas, ?-blocks, whatever. You wouldn't want a Half-Life game without headcrabs or a crowbar.

Point is: do a little research, people. NSMB2 is a score-attack game based on getting a whole lot of coins and all the mechanics have been retooled around having as many ways to get those coins as possible. NSMBU looks to trying to have the most dynamic, detailed environments in a 2D Mario since Yoshi's Island, plus we've got the whole GamePad implementation for asymmetric gameplay and speed-runs, as well as the return of the multiplayer focus from NSMBWii.

And as for the Zangief thing, I don't care. The fact that they're actually caring to get all these licenses in the first place is awesome. They could've just stopped at Bowser and Eggman, but they're doing characters from games even I'm not that knowledgeable about. I eagerly await Wreck-It Ralph, because it looks positively awesome. Plus you've got the guy who did Steve Brule from Tim & Eric as the main character and a character played by Sarah Silverman, so what's not to like?

Uh, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure DC has a TON of non-powered characters. Wildcat, Green Arrow, Huntress, the entire bat-family, Shining Knight, and Manhunter just off the top of my head. And that's not even counting "suit" characters.

Superman can now run x number of times faster than light and is immune to kryptonite, so yeah.

Since when is he immune to Kryptonite? If anything he's been depowered since the new 52.

This was taken from the wiki on Kryptonite where it says "Superman is shown to have become immune to the effects of green Kryptonite due to either repeated non-fatal exposure, continuous long-term absorption of solar radiation, or extremely high short-term exposure to the sun.

Superman can now run x number of times faster than light and is immune to kryptonite, so yeah.

Since when is he immune to Kryptonite? If anything he's been depowered since the new 52.

This was taken from the wiki on Kryptonite where it says "Superman is shown to have become immune to the effects of green Kryptonite due to either repeated non-fatal exposure, continuous long-term absorption of solar radiation, or extremely high short-term exposure to the sun.

How incredibly disingenuous, so you're just going to ignore the stonking great "In various stories..." right before that part you quoted? Those various stories include Kingdom Come (happened on Earth 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(Kingdom_Come) ) and All Star Superman which (also on wiki) "These series are attempts by DC to allow major comics creators a chance to tell stories showcasing these characters without being restricted by DC Universe continuity."

Superman in regular continuity does not have an immunity to Kryptonite. That's like complaining that Batman's overpowered because in In Darkest Knight he gets the green lantern ring.

Spot1990:Since when is he immune to Kryptonite? If anything he's been depowered since the new 52.

This was taken from the wiki on Kryptonite where it says "Superman is shown to have become immune to the effects of green Kryptonite due to either repeated non-fatal exposure, continuous long-term absorption of solar radiation, or extremely high short-term exposure to the sun.

How incredibly disingenuous, so you're just going to ignore the stonking great "In various stories..." right before that part you quoted? Those various stories include Kingdom Come (happened on Earth 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(Kingdom_Come) ) and All Star Superman which (also on wiki) "These series are attempts by DC to allow major comics creators a chance to tell stories showcasing these characters without being restricted by DC Universe continuity."

Superman in regular continuity does not have an immunity to Kryptonite. That's like complaining that Batman's overpowered because in In Darkest Knight he gets the green lantern ring.

So Mario gets to exist for ages in marginally different games, but Batman, existing across several different media is enough, you must be joking :) (disclaimer, I am actually nto really excited for the new movie, but the point remains).

I also don't understand the hype for Wreck it Ralph, from what I can tell it looks to be an uninspired, standard story, but the 'twist' is it has some video game cameos? I'll wait before getting excited if you don't mind.

-I'm going to say something that will probably be controversial. Justice League Unlimited was probably the last time the DC Universe was anything resembling good.

You never bothered to watch Young Justice or Teen Titans did you? Or perhaps any of the DC animated movies to come out in the last 7 years. They're generally not very well advertised, but you can easily pick them up in stores when they come out or on Amazon and they are almost always excellent.

I do watch Young Justice, I used to watch Teen Titans and no, I haven't been paying too much attention to the various DC animated movies over the years. Mostly out of sheer laziness. I mean yes, there's something insanely awesome about Justice League: New Frontier, but I just never seem to scrounge up the coin for them. I think what I meant was that Justice League Unlimited was the last time something dealt solely with the day-to-day of the Justice League itself.

Sis:Haven't we reached the point where maybe, just maybe, we've seen enough Mario for a while?

Pretty much this.

And as a fan of the EA Sports NHL franchise, I think it's asinine to talk about how much Mario has innovated and then say those games haven't innovated at all. It just comes off as super pretentious.

"Yeah. I grew up with the NES. My franchise of choice is better than YOUR franchise of choice."

I grew up with an NES too. I'm just not a pretentious ass about it.

Really? My first sports game was Fifa International Soccer. You know, from before they started adding years onto the title. Do you know what my overriding memory of the difference between it and its sequel was? They took out 'crazy ball' mode (or at least I never found it in the sequel).

Go ahead and ask my what differences I remember from Mario 1 and 2, or 2 and 3, or 1 and 3, or ANY Mario game to any other Mario game, because I grew up playing Mario and Sonic and, yes, a fair share of Madden and FIFA as well.

The simple truth is I can comfortably spend longer telling you why EA sports is a waste of time, a waste of money and a fucking insult to gamers everywhere than I can telling you what makes Generic Sports Clone June 2012 worth buying over Generic Sports Clone May 2012. That alone is easily the most damning thing anyone could ever say about a game.

EA is not alone is screwing the consumer. If you honestly boycotted every company that screwed its customers over in the pursuit of profit, you'd be left with Stardock Games, and indie titles. Every company does it, EA was dumb enough to be caught.

The changes that happen every year are fairly large. Madden is adding a directed pass feature that makes passing worth it on higher difficulties, with all of the new controls and animations that go with it. Tackling is being improved as well, with less blank collisions and more active control on how you tackle.

Changes like that happen every season, but people who don't pay attention to sports games (virtually everyone on this site) don't notice, and claim nothing has changed.

2D Mario games used to have a lot of variety back in the NES and SNES days. Now Nintendo is content with just releasing the same game over and over again. Once Nintendo actually does something different with Mario then I'll consider buying a WiiU.

You are correct, there are tons of people that have limited powers and are even entirely human. The "power" difference between the two universes isn't really even existent. In fact the Marvel universe arguable has more powerful characters but they tend to have even more powerful villains/non-heroes. Galactus, The Beyonder, Kubik, Apocalypse, Celestials, Phoenix Force, Infinity Gauntlet, and many others are far more powerful than what is common in the DC universe. That isn't to say there aren't rediciously powerful beings in the DC universe (Spectre, Lucifer, Nekron, Anti-Monitor, and so forth). The problem is in how they are portrayed and who has the spotlight. Superman would be somewhere around Thor's power-level in the Marvel universe I suspect. Just with a bit more utility.

The Big Difference is that Marvel's characters tend to have flaws that limit them more than DC's characters do. Thor, at least in the comics, was limited to a truly human form (with a limp, no less). He wasn't playing at being human, he was human. Whereas Superman just puts on a suit and wears glasses. Spiderman had a truly crappy personal life- he had a complete life of suck where he could do nothing right, not to mention being responsible for his own Uncle's death by not stopping the guy who actually went out and killed him, even though he could have. Batman was a child when his parents got killed. What could he have done to prevent it? I am not saying DC heroes are without personal flaws (although some certainly are, Superman for one), but the Marvel heroes have larger and more limiting ones. That was Stan Lee's big contribution to the genre, that the heroes are more heroic when overcoming personal limitations that actually do limit them in some way.

This person speaks the truth. I suppose I should have expanded upon the statement "...how they are portrayed and who has the spotlight" as it was left rather vague. There are plenty of people within the DC universe that are actually flawed/limited/interesting/well characterized or however you want to put it. Sadly they often aren't in the spotlight. Likewise characters like Superman could be portrayed as having flaws without sacrificing what makes the character who they are. On occasion they are portrayed that way, and incidentally those tend to be the most well received stories whether or not they are canon. It just isn't the case most of the time.

In my original post I merely wanted to point out the "Demi-Gods amongst men" statement wasn't really any different between universes.

The way I would put it is that DC focuses on "characters as symbols" while Marvel focuses on "characters as people", and whichever you prefer really just has to do with what you want to get out of your comic reading. I made the original post to illustrate that it's not the type or quality of characters that are the difference between the two worlds, though I will admit, that I find the symbolism to be one of the big advantages of comics, so I tend to prefer it. And of "characters as people" stories, Top 10 would probably be my favorite.